Photographing this WLH is a PITA

Lehigh96 · January 3, 2012 4:44PM

I have spent hours trying to capture the iridescent toning on this WLH to no avail. All I can get is a very small area of color to show on the reverse.

Now compare my photo to the Heritage photo which better shows the coverage of the toning on the reverse. Has anybody ever successfully photographed this type of toning before? If so, any suggestions?

1944 WLH NGC MS64

magikbilly · January 3, 2012 5:56PM

Hiya,

Apart from the difference in "white", it looks like obscured/indirect/soft or bounced lighting. Looks like a trade from definition of strike (your photo) to color (Heritage photo).

Best,
Eric

blu62vette · January 3, 2012 9:47PM

Those are a pain, you'll find the right way.

Walkerguy21D · January 3, 2012 9:48PM

Frankly I like your photos better than Heritages.

magikbilly · January 3, 2012 9:50PM

I should have asked which do you feel is more accurate to the coin in hand? My guess is something between the two images?

Eric

blu62vette · January 3, 2012 10:11PM

<< Frankly I like your photos better than Heritages. >>

I would agree with that 100%

ricko · January 3, 2012 11:07PM

I also agree... the first pictures are better.... Cheers, RickO

messydesk · January 3, 2012 11:18PM

Close one eye and tilt it around in the light until you get the view you want to capture, then look to see where the lights are. If you look with both eyes open, the opalescent toning will mess with you too much and you won't be able to see the kind of shot that is possible.

guitarwes · January 3, 2012 11:44PM

<< 

<< Frankly I like your photos better than Heritages. >>

I would agree with that 100% >>

+1

Nice pics

lsica · January 4, 2012 1:47AM

<< Close one eye and tilt it around in the light until you get the view you want to capture, then look to see where the lights are. If you look with both eyes open, the opalescent toning will mess with you too much and you won't be able to see the kind of shot that is possible. >>

Does this really work? I've had some pieces that have the same type of irridescent/opalescent toning that look really nice in hand but just never seem to image adequately. Is it because the "color play" effect is a "stereo" one?

lsica · January 4, 2012 1:50AM

BTW I like the first photo better too. But I understand why the OP isn't fond of it if the piece has some nice irridescent toning he just can't image. When you're trying to show someone exactly what "wow"'s you about a piece and you just can't get it in a photo, it's frustrating.

Lehigh96 · January 4, 2012 2:41AM

<< I should have asked which do you feel is more accurate to the coin in hand? My guess is something between the two images?

Eric >>

Overall color, detail, and luster, my images are much more accurate. The only thing that the Heritage images have is that they show the iridescent rainbow color that my image only captures a small blush.

messydesk · January 4, 2012 6:37AM

<< Does this really work? I've had some pieces that have the same type of irridescent/opalescent toning that look really nice in hand but just never seem to image adequately. Is it because the "color play" effect is a "stereo" one? >>

To an extent, yes. Compared to brightly colored toning, opalescent toning comes and goes as you tilt the coin, and one eye may pick it up differently than the other. Same goes for the accompanying luster. Closing one eye and moving the coin slowly will give you more realistic expectations for imaging.

Photographing this WLH is a PITA

Comments

Leave a Comment